Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews for Behavioral Treatments of Attention Disorders in Traumatic Brain Injury.

Jane Roitsch, Rachael Redman, Anne M P Michalek, Rachel K Johnson, Anastasia M Raymer
{"title":"Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews for Behavioral Treatments of Attention Disorders in Traumatic Brain Injury.","authors":"Jane Roitsch,&nbsp;Rachael Redman,&nbsp;Anne M P Michalek,&nbsp;Rachel K Johnson,&nbsp;Anastasia M Raymer","doi":"10.1097/HTR.0000000000000444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review appraised the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to summarize research on behavioral interventions for attention disorders in persons with traumatic brain injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of 7 databases revealed 15 MAs/SRs reporting outcomes for attention treatments in traumatic brain injury. Two examiners independently coded the quality of reviews with the Critical Appraisal of Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis and the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings of both scales were highly correlated. Four reviews were conducted with high methodologic rigor indicated by a score of 60% or greater on both scales. No other study scored above 45%. Among the well-conducted SRs/MAs, evidence for direct attention training effects was limited to basic attention exercises, with little generalization to functional activities. Strategy training for activities and tasks requiring attentional abilities had a stronger evidence base in 1 rigorous MA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This appraisal provides valuable practice information. The conclusions of 4 rigorous reviews suggest that there is only limited positive scientific support for the effects of attention treatments for traumatic brain injury. Future SRs/MAs would benefit from adherence to review guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":519229,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"E42-E50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000444","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objective: This review appraised the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to summarize research on behavioral interventions for attention disorders in persons with traumatic brain injury.

Methods: A search of 7 databases revealed 15 MAs/SRs reporting outcomes for attention treatments in traumatic brain injury. Two examiners independently coded the quality of reviews with the Critical Appraisal of Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis and the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale.

Results: The findings of both scales were highly correlated. Four reviews were conducted with high methodologic rigor indicated by a score of 60% or greater on both scales. No other study scored above 45%. Among the well-conducted SRs/MAs, evidence for direct attention training effects was limited to basic attention exercises, with little generalization to functional activities. Strategy training for activities and tasks requiring attentional abilities had a stronger evidence base in 1 rigorous MA.

Conclusions: This appraisal provides valuable practice information. The conclusions of 4 rigorous reviews suggest that there is only limited positive scientific support for the effects of attention treatments for traumatic brain injury. Future SRs/MAs would benefit from adherence to review guidelines.

外伤性脑损伤中注意障碍行为治疗的系统评价质量评价。
目的:评价系统评价(SRs)和荟萃分析(MAs)的质量,总结外伤性脑损伤患者注意障碍的行为干预研究。方法:对7个数据库进行检索,获得15个报告外伤性脑损伤注意治疗结果的MAs/SRs。两名审查员独立地用系统评价或元分析的关键评价和增强和替代沟通系统评价量表中的证据对评价的质量进行编码。结果:两种量表的调查结果高度相关。四项评价以高度严谨的方法进行,两项评分均达到60%或更高。没有其他研究的得分高于45%。在实施良好的SRs/MAs中,直接注意训练效果的证据仅限于基本的注意训练,很少推广到功能活动。对需要注意能力的活动和任务的策略训练在1个严格的MA中有更强的证据基础。结论:本评价提供了有价值的实践信息。4项严格审查的结论表明,只有有限的积极科学支持的注意力治疗的效果创伤性脑损伤。未来的特别提款权/MAs将受益于遵守审查准则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书